There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Only the Irreligious are Worthy of Rights

“No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body.” — Margaret Sanger (Her motto: “No gods — No masters.”)

So begins the New York Times full page ad.
Are you dismayed and alarmed by the Supreme Court’s June 30 Hobby Lobby ruling? The Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative, Roman Catholic majority — Justices Roberts, Scalia,
Alito, Kennedy and Thomas — has sided with zealous fundamentalists who equate contraception with abortion. The court has granted employers with “sincere” religious objections the right to deny women employees insurance coverage for birth control. 
This ruling marks a turning point in the struggle to uphold civil liberties in the face of relentless attacks by the Religious Right. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. Now, the Supreme Court asserts that corporations have “religious rights” that surpass those of women. In the words of Justice John Paul Stevens, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires” — but real women do. 
Allowing employers to decide what kind of birth control an employee can use is not, as the Supreme Court ruled, an “exercise of religion.” It is an exercise of tyranny.
How appropriate that The New York Times should quote Margaret Sanger
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood. 
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South." 
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers." She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted. 
... Sanger's obsession with eugenics can be traced back to her own family. One of 11 children, she wrote in the autobiographical book, My Fight for Birth Control, that "I associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, jails with large families." Just as important was the impression in her childhood of an inferior family status, exacerbated by the iconoclastic, "free-thinking" views of her father, whose "anti-Catholic attitudes did not make for his popularity" in a predominantly Irish community. 
Read more here
That Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenics proponent is not a matter of debate as detailed in The Washington Times
Recent articles have reported on an unearthed video from 1947 of Margaret Sanger demanding “no more babies” for 10 years in developing countries. A couple of years ago, Margaret Sanger was named one of Time magazine’s “20 Most Influential Americans of All Time.” Given her enduring influence, it’s worth considering what the woman who founded Planned Parenthood contributed to the eugenics movement. 
Sanger shaped the eugenics movement in America and beyond in the 1930s and 1940s. Her views and those of her peers in the movement contributed to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including people she considered “feeble-minded,” “idiots” and “morons.” 
She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks. 
... “While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review). 
“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review). 
“Stop our national habit of human waste.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 6). 
Read more here
You can read one of Sanger's publications in her own words here

And the interview by Mike Wallace



EACH of us has an ideal of what the American of the future should be. We have been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States. What is the basis for this hope that is so generally indulged in? If the hope is founded upon realities, how may it be realized? To understand the difficulties and the obstacles to be overcome before the dream of a greater race in America can be attained, is to understand something of the task before the women who shall give birth to that race. 
... Can we expect to remedy this situation by dismissing the problem of the submerged native elements with legislative palliatives or treating it with careless scorn? Do we better it by driving out of the immigrant's heart the dream of liberty that brought him to our shores? Do we solve the problem by giving him, instead of an opportunity to develop his own culture, low wages, a home in the slums and those pseudo-patriotic preachments which constitute our machine-made "Americanization"? 
Every detail of this sordid situation means a problem that must be solved before we can even clear the way for a greater race in America. Nor is there any hope of solving any of these problems if we continue to attack them in the usual way. 
Men have sentimentalized about them and legislated upon them. They have denounced
{p. 44}
them and they have applied reforms. But it has all been ridiculously, cruelly futile. 
This is the condition of things for which those stand who demand more and more children. Each child born under such conditions but makes them worse--each child in its own person suffers the consequence of the intensified evils. 
If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy. 
The intelligence of a people is of slow evolutional development--it lags far behind the reproductive ability. It is far too slow to cope with conditions created by an increasing population, unless that increase is carefully regulated. 
We must, therefore, not permit an increase in population that we are not prepared to care for to the best advantage--that we are not
{p. 45}
prepared to do justice to, educationally and economically. We must popularize birth control thinking. We must not leave it haphazardly to be the privilege of the already privileged. We must put this means of freedom and growth into the bands of the masses. 
We must set motherhood free. We must give the foreign and submerged mother knowledge that will enable her to prevent bringing to birth children she does not want. We know that in each of these submerged and semisubmerged elements of the population there are rich factors of racial culture. Motherhood is the channel through which these cultures flow. 
Motherhood, when free to choose the father, free to choose the time and the number of children who shall result from the union, automatically works in wondrous ways. It refuses to bring forth weaklings; refuses to bring forth slaves; refuses to bear children who must live under the conditions described. It withholds the unfit, brings forth the fit; brings few children into homes where there is not sufficient to provide for them. Instinctively it avoids all those things which multiply racial handicaps. Under such circumstances we can hope
{p. 46}
that the "melting pot" will refine. We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination.
In a recent piece for MSNBC Sara Kugler writes:
Women’s experiences with questions of reproductive justice in the United States have often been tied to race. 
In the introduction to Dorothy Robert’s 1997 book Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty, she writes: 
“The systematic, institutionalized denial of reproductive freedom has uniquely marked Black women’s history in America. Considering this history – from slave masters’ economic stake in bonded women’s fertility to the racist strains of early birth control policy to sterilization abuse of Black women during the 1960s and 1970s to the current campaign to inject Norplant and Depo-Provera in the arms of Black teenagers and welfare mothers – paints a powerful picture of the link between race and reproductive freedom in America.” 
Today we are going to discuss birth control, and the woman who spent her life advocating for its universal availability: Margaret Sanger. 
Sanger is credited with coining the term “birth control” and founded the American Birth Control League, a precursor to Planned Parenthood, at a time when contraceptives were still criminalized under the Comstock Act. She was instrumental in bringing about the first FDA approved oral contraceptive, Enovid. 
But Sanger was also a proponent of eugenics, and saw birth control as a method of promoting that agenda.
So for me at least, the ad and it's quote of a racist eugenics proponent is entirely appropriate.

Or have I been eating paint chips again?

The Politics of Advantageous Racism

Institutionalized racism is rampant in American politics and it's perpetuation is a permanent part of the Democratic platform.

Never mind the actual history of racism, let's save time and acknowledge that racism exists on both sides of the aisle, it serves no purpose to suggest or argue otherwise. It IS however a feature and platform of the leftist progressive movement to perpetuate it's existence, and to pretend that their insistence that it is the exclusive "fault" of the right, or anyone who disagrees with or challenges their stand on ANY MATTER essentially boils down to either racism, misogyny, homophobia or some combination thereof. What is most disturbing about this is that it goes completely unchallenged and that under the Obama administration is growing in effect and popularity, and it's influence grows wider encompassing more "issues" each day.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) is as dumb as a box of soap, and loves to cite pure fiction, make unchallenged and outrageous claims of racism and is now making a platform of of "equality" for the invasion across our Southern border. As a "freed slave" she is a self-proclaimed expert on racial suppression.



Lee "believes the border crisis is not a national security threat, despite gangsters having already been apprehended along the United States-Mexico border."
In fact, Jackson Lee waved a bag of lollipops during a Thursday House Homeland Security Field Hearing in McAllen, Texas, and said she took bags of such lollipops to the illegal immigrant children in detention centers during recent visits. 
"This is not a national security crisis," Jackson Lee emphasized, noting that she was not armed and did not fear for her life when visiting the children. Jackson Lee said Border Patrol agents claimed the children were some of the most "orderly" and "behaved" children they have encountered.
In 2011 before the House Committee on Homeland Security on radicalization in American Muslim communities it was the suppression of Muslims as reported by The Daily Caller.
“I brought with me the Constitution, the living, breathing document. The First Amendment allows us the freedom of religion. The freedom of association and expression,” she said. “But I will tell you today, that this breathing document is in pain.” 
Turning to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the head of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy and a witness at the hearing, she asked, “Mr. Jasser, may I just ask, are you a Muslim?”
“I’m a devout Muslim who prays and fasts and tries to raise my kids to be conservative orthodox Muslims, yes I am,” he replied. 
“Thank you, sir. Are there any other Muslims on the witness table?” she asked. There were.
“The reason why I ask that question is because Muslims are here cooperating,” Jackson Lee said. “They are doing what this hearing has suggested that they do not do! It is an irony and an outrage that we are wasting time when Muslims are sitting before us, a Muslim is on this panel, a Muslim has testified, so I question, where are the uncooperative Muslims?” 
Jackson Lee concluded her time with a final word against the hearings: 
“Millions of Americans find community, comfort and support in their faith. That includes President Obama, who is a Christian but spoke in Cairo. So today reminds us that being religious is never un-American! Being religious is quintessentially American. God bless America!”
Curious that she would bring the US Constitution with her to Congress, the implication of course is that she has exclusive and better "knowledge" of it than others present at the hearing. It's pretty evident otherwise, “Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority — the Republicans, my chairman and others — for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not.”

She sees racism behind any "issue" or subject you could name, including gun control “Don’t condemn the gangbangers, they’ve got guns that are trafficked -- that are not enforced, that are straw purchased and they come into places even that have strong gun laws." “Why? Because we don’t have sensible gun legislation.”

Lee has been a long time supporter of Obamacare, and the extension of Obamacare to illegal aliens, and that anyone who brings any kind of challenge to Obamacare is by definition both racist and a misogynist and are the same as those who opposed civil rights reformation.

Lee of course wants nothing to stand in the way of Obama's desired reforms and changes for America, no matter the issue as long as a way can be found for Obama policy to go forward, regardless of impact or legality:
“give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign.”
Jackson Lee added that writing up executive orders “should be our number one agenda.”
“We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work and we’re not doing right by them by creating work,” the Texas congresswoman said. “I believe this caucus will put us on the right path and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength,” Jackson said Jan. 29 at a press conference where she and fellow Democrats launched the Full Employment Caucus.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is one of many I could name, including any number of the members of this questionable body of "believers"

Or have I been eating paint chips again?

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The dilution of vocabulary as a tool of absolutism

English was a beautiful language, it's corruption for political purposes has a very deliberate and dark side.

Having spent many hours pouring over the writings of John Locke and a good number of the Founding Fathers, I've developed a longing for the return of the eloquent language of English. Raised on JRR Tolkien and other prominent English writers, the ground was already rich and fertile. Thomas Jefferson was very gifted with language as evidenced from this early draft of The Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for a People to advance from that Subordination, in which they have hitherto remained and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the equal and independent Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes, which impell them to the Change. 
We hold these Truths to be self evident; that all Men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable; among which are the Preservation of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these Ends, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed; that whenever, any form of Government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter, or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its power in such Form, as to them shall Seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to Suffer, while Evils are Sufferable, than to right themselves, by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, begun at a distinguish'd Period, and pursuing invariably, the same object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Power, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity, which constrains them to expunge their former Systems of Government. The History of his present Majesty, is a History of unremitting Injuries and Usurpations, among which no one Fact stands Single or Solitary to contradict the uniform Tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object, the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be Submitted to a candid World, for the Truth of which We pledge a Faith, as yet unsullied by falsehood.
President George Washington in his farewell address spoke with remarkable elegance and foresight:
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. 
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Contrast today's presidential folly and tyranny:
"So sue me," he taunted on a sweltering day, as he pushed lawmakers to pay for road and bridge repairs. "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something. 
... "So far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked or voted down every serious idea to strengthen the middle class — not ideas that are unique to me," he said. "But the Republicans have said no to raising the minimum wage, have said no to fair pay. They've said no to extending unemployment insurance for over 3 million Americans looking for a new job."


There has been a gradual usurpation of all kinds of language and meanings of language, deliberate distortions which go way beyond the gradual and natural drift of language over time. Phrases on the lips of politicians, pundits and the press these days:
  • Illegal Immigrant
  • Gay
  • Liberal
  • Racist/Racism
  • Discrimination - which without a qualifier is actually a DESIRABLE trait in man
  • Equality - as referenced in the Declaration of Independence - with specific meaning and referenced rights, NOT meaning equal in economic station or results of labor
  • Equal Rights
  • Diversity
  • Occupation
  • Insurgent
There are completely fabricated phrases as well "homophobic" (an absolutely moronic term) "global warming" also designed to divide or categorize rather than to liberate.  Whole new ways of public castigation of your fellows have been invented, pursuing a progressive agenda of absolutism and despotism.  In his delightful romp of intellectual rhetorical argument for Hoover Institute, The Language of Despotism by Bruce Thornton argues this while not anything particularly new, he also suggests something far more sinister is going on:
Long before 1984 gave us the adjective “Orwellian” to describe the political corruption of language and thought, Thucydides observed how factional struggles for power make words their first victims. Describing the horrors of civil war on the island of Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides wrote, “Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.” Orwell explains the reason for such degradation of language in his essay “Politics and the English Language”: “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” 
Tyrannical power and its abuses comprise the “indefensible” that must be verbally disguised. The gulags, engineered famines, show trials, and mass murder of the Soviet Union required that it be a “regime of lies,” as the disillusioned admirer of Soviet communism Pierre Pascal put it in 1927. 
Our own political and social discourse must torture language in order to disguise the failures and abuses of policies designed to advance the power and interests of the “soft despotism,” as Tocqueville called it, of the modern Leviathan state and its political caretakers. Meanwhile, in foreign policy the transformation of meaning serves misguided policies that endanger our security and interests. 
... In foreign policy, however, the abuse of language is positively dangerous. Since 9/11, our failure to identity the true nature of the Islamist threat and its grounding in traditional Islamic theology has led to misguided aims and tactics. Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, for example, the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad––which means to fight against the enemies of Islam, which predominantly means infidels––has been redefined to serve the dubious tactic of flattering Islam in order to prevent Muslim terrorism. 
... Thus in 2008 the National Terrorism Center instructed its employees, “Never use the term jihadist or mujahideen in conversation to describe terrorists,” since “In Arabic, jihad means ‘striving in the path of God’ and is used in many contexts beyond warfare.” Similarly, CIA chief John Brennan has asserted that jihad “is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community,” despite the fourteen centuries of evidence from the Koran, hadiths, and bloody history that jihad is in fact predominantly an obligatory armed struggle against the enemies of Islam. The reluctance to put Muslim violence in its religious context reflects not historical truth, but a public relations tactic serving the delusional strategy of appeasing Muslims into liking us. 
... This may sound like quibbling over careless language, but the dishonest use of “border” reinforces and encodes in peoples’ minds the big lie of the conflict––
Read the rest here and decide ...

Or have I been eating paint chips again?